"A Rhetorical and Sociolanguistic Model for the Anaysis of Narrative," Response (5)

My initial reaction upon conclusion of this essay was that is was a very complex, overly long account of a highly relevant tactic. While I do agree that learning how to properly analyze the narrative aspect of folklore is definitely important, I feel that Watson could have easily slimmed down her writing, both in length and language, and that it still would convey the same message. One point that fascinated me here was the section regarding French structuralism and how they feel narratives are influenced. Watson states that the French link narrative directly to brain structure, and that the words produced whilst telling a story mirror that of what is actually being thought in the mind. This made me question the concept myself, as this particular theory, along with many others brought forth in this essay, could very well be the true cause. Even though I felt that the essay was written just a tad to complex, I have to respect the massive amount of research evident in this paper. Referencing everything from hard science to Fischer, Watson manages to incorporate several different opinions to a highly controversial topic and back up each one with a relevant source, something I intend to do when it comes time to write my own essay. ALl in all, I felt that the author did a solid job of breaking down a very deep concept, but my main qualm with the work is that it could have been trimmed down a bit.